85/2.8 35/1.8 24/2 MTF curves on sony Japan

[youpii]

SAL85F28
http://www.sony.jp/dslr/products/SAL85F ... html#L1_40

SAL35F18
http://www.sony.jp/dslr/products/SAL35F ... html#L1_30

SAL24F20Z
http://www.sony.jp/dslr/products/SAL24F ... html#L1_40

The SAL85F28 & SAL35F18 look very promising.
They lens structure seem very similar to Zeiss C/Y designs, especially the SAL85F28.

[David Kilpatrick]

OK, don't feel bad about not being able to afford the 24mm f/2 now!

David

[pakodominguez]

I don't really know how to read one of these charts, but the 85mm f2.8 looks good, right?

[Greg Beetham]

Pako, with what I know about MTF charts (not a lot), the closest the dotted line is too the corresponding colour solid line the better the oof area is, and the higher up the chart all the lines are the better the contrast and resolution is, also the distance from the center is given and where the performance starts to fall off.
Looking at the chart for the 85mm f2.8 I'd say loosely (if I'm reading it right, manufacturers present their charts differently too each other sometimes) that it is definitely in 'blow your socks off' territory.
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

The 85mm f/2.8 is where it should be. This specification should be so easy to make to near perfection. In fact if you bother to look back over Minolta designs, there has never been a bad 85mm, 100mm or 105mm even when they pushed the aperture of the 85mm to f/1.7 in the late 1960s (having already made a stunningly good 100mm f/2 in 1966 or earlier).

David

[youpii]

I can't but see some Zeiss DNA it the SAL 85/2.8.
Left: SAL 85/2.8, right: C/Y Sonnar 85/2.8


Also something familiar between the SAL 35/1.8 and C/Y 35/2.8, although the frame coverage is different
Left: SAL DT 35/1.8, right: C/Y Distagon 35/2.8


It seems that Sony has taken an interesting approach with these two lenses. Their very simple optical formula and the plastic construction amounts to a very low price compared to their sharpness. I guess that the price of some Minolta primes will drop very soon.

[David Kilpatrick]

It's not Zeiss DNA, any more than a Micro Nikkor 50mm f/3.5 has Zeiss DNA because it's based on a Tessar. The designs used by most modern lensmakers (for anything except zooms) are commonly known as Tessar, Sonnar, Planar, Biogon, Distagon types because Zeiss either invented or first marketed these designs. The two 35mm examples are only similar in that they are retrofocus lenses.

Pretty much every lens made today has Zeiss DNA, just the same way that you are related to Genghis Khan.

David

[peterottaway]

And all safely decades out of patent.

[pakodominguez]

The 85mm f/2.8 is where it should be. This specification should be so easy to make to near perfection. In fact if you bother to look back over Minolta designs, there has never been a bad 85mm, 100mm or 105mm even when they pushed the aperture of the 85mm to f/1.7 in the late 1960s (having already made a stunningly good 100mm f/2 in 1966 or earlier).

David

Next question: why 85mm lenses are that pricey if design seamed easy enough for make it "always" right?

I had the Minolta Maxxum 85 f1.4 but I'd never feel that confident with it: too big and "delicate", I used it on APS but since I went FF I preferred the 100 f2.8 SF that is smaller, lighter and apparently less fragile. I sold the 85mm without regret.

The SAM 85 f2.8 looks way more interesting....

[Dr. Harout]

It would be very interesting to compare 85mm-s including the Samyang (cause I own one )

[David Kilpatrick]

85mm lenses are pricey because a) very few are sold b) most are made extra fast. Even the last MD Rokkor was f/2. An f/2.8 85mm is dead easy to make at a very good price.

David

[agorabasta]

The Samyang 85 is too cheap to even sell too well... They should've marked it at some $900 to gain the due respect to the thingie.

[Dr. Harout]

The Samyang 85 is too cheap to even sell too well... They should've marked it at some $900 to gain the due respect to the thingie.

It wouldn't sell at that price due to its non-AF, non auto aperture being. I'm very happy with it but can't make quick shots.
I guess only Pentax/Samsung owners will be much happy, due to its auto aperture possibility (if I'm not wrong).
I don't mind AF cause before switching to digital I was using totally manual focusing lenses. Yes the aperture was manual too but closing only when taking the picture, so not dimming the viewfinder as is the case now with the Samyang lenses. But as they say, I can live with that too. And frankly, I'm tempted with that 85/2.8.

85mm lenses are pricey because a) very few are sold b) most are made extra fast. Even the last MD Rokkor was f/2. An f/2.8 85mm is dead easy to make at a very good price.

David

David, will you buy one? I mean the 85/2.8 ?

[David Kilpatrick]

I'll probably buy one. I will check to see whether is autofocuses on my 2X Teleplus. 170mm f/5.6 is a good 2X combo.

David

[agorabasta]

The Samyang 85 is too cheap to even sell too well... They should've marked it at some $900 to gain the due respect to the thingie.

It wouldn't sell at that price due to its non-AF, non auto aperture being. I'm very happy with it but can't make quick shots.

In fact, that lens provides better reach than some cheap 70-200/70-300 zooms when used with good hi-res sensor cams (not at the short end, of course). You simply crop to the sensor limit instead of zooming.

And it sure can make quick shots if set at f/11-f/13 and prefocused so that the DOF is guaranteed to cover the subjects.

I have most use of my manual lenses with exactly that kind of operation - having them preset and just snapping away happily without worrying of focus/aperture setting. I even have them taped over at times to prevent accidental settings change.